Al Shades,
“Yeah, radical to a liberal or a to a neoconservative/neofascist.”
Hmmm. How about a radical to the general American populace? Harry Browne probably couldn’t even get a write-in vote for himself on his own ballot.
Look around, Al. We don’t live in a fascist state. As for being a ‘neocon’, I personally have zero interest in annexing any territory on earth. To be frank, you’re going to have to do better than that.
“A past which didn’t involve wars of imperialism and a national police state. “Radical,” my ass.”
We don’t live in a police state. Second, name a war where you have credible - not speculative - evidence that the US wanted to conquer and plant our flag over the soil.
“Look at the Roman Empire; it conquered the known world, yet it was always being invaded.”
Stepping out of your range here, Al - the Roman Empire was overextended to be sure, but its collapse had to do with civil squabbles and a culture shift along with tactical problems defending such a vast territory.
It’s also a weak analogy. The US isn’t trying to conquer anyone. There is no battle group in the Persian Gulf for the first time in 12 years. The US is sticking around to manage transition into a new type of government, which is risky at best - too bad if you don’t like it, but then I suppose you’re used to being on the wrong side of history.
“The mere suggestion that any other nation would attempt to attack the United States, nevermind some shithole of an Islamic state, is pure horseshit.”
Nonsense, and I find your naivete almost hard to respond to. Tyrants and wannabe conquerors aren’t using the uber-rational calculus you hope they are - else why would Hitler invade Russia during a Russian winter or Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait knowing the the known world would pounce on him with UN approval?
What of the attacks of 9/11? Wasn’t that silly move on OBL’s part, to invoke the ire of the world’s most dominant military, thus creating battlefields littered with dead terrorists?
Your claim is silly and naive.
“The only possible threat posed to America by other nations is that of a nuclear/missile strike - and this could be eliminated with the implementation of a working missile defense system.”
Er, no - asymmetric biological, chemical, germ warfare is a big threat, as well as transcontinental missiles. Missile defense system? I am all for it.
“Incidentally, Harry Browne is a strong advocate of this - provided that the task of developing the system was in the hands of a private company, not a federal bureaucracy.”
Incidentally, Harry Browne doesn’t register as a blip on the national radar, so no one is waiting with baited breath on whether Harry Browne wants a missile defense system or not. And, just for your edification, our national weaponry is produced by private contractors. There is no federal factory making F-16s.
“I just addressed the missile threat.”
Yes, poorly and incompletely.
“There is no half-bit dictator alive (and there never will be) who would EVER launch missiles against the United States unprovoked, because he would have to know that this would result in a swift and immediate American military response as well as his own extraction from power.”
No? What were the attacks of 9/11 but makeshift missiles out of planes? One thing you got right - there was swift response. As for the ‘unprovoked’ charge and the fact that you believe everyone is a victim - more later.
“These thugs seek to rule their own domains with an iron fist, not to go abroad and challenge superpowers like the United States - they are almost entirely isolationist.”
Absolute garbage, refuted by the jihadist literature itself. OBL has wanted to reclaim Spanish Andalusia because he believes it was ‘stolen’ from the Muslim Empire hundreds of years ago. Since the Islamists want to establish a 20th century pan-caliphate, it is implausible to suggest they are ‘isolationist’ - now you are just making shit up.
“Terrorism is a completely unrelated threat, and it is a phenomenon caused directly by “pre-emptive” (imperialist) military intervention.”
Uh, no. Terrorism is a tactic - poor backwards nations or groups that don’t have access to moderized miltary capabilities create their own way to bring pain. Moreover, terrorism is a tactic designed to sidestep international laws of war, thereby giving them an advantage. In other words, civilized nations are compelled to observe the law of war - terrorists get to fight without those inconveniences, and it gives them an advantage to offset the fact they don’t have standing armies, armor groups, and an air force.
“Tell me: have you ever bothered to listen to the messages issued by Osama Bin Laden or high-ranking Islamic “terrorist” groups on a regular basis?”
Bad news, Al - I read the jihadist literature.
“If you had, you’d know they all share a common theme: These people view the United States as an infidel that has ENCROACHED ON THEIR TERRITORY, and therefore MUST be driven back.”
And it doesn’t stop there - they want the pan-caliphate of old. Liberal societies - rotten to the core with their materialism and hedonism, ironically the twin lusts of libertarianism - stand in the way of the pan-caliphate.
Also, while I don’t personally care for our history with Saudi Arabia, don’t forget that the US had government permission to be there. If the Islamists don’t like it, take it up with the ruling elite.
“How would you like it if China decided that the United States was a potential threat, and decided on a “pre-emptive” invasion that left foreign troops permanently stationed in your town?”
Well, they would have to win first. Second, if George Bush had raped my sisters, tortured my uncle, and killed my parents by putting them into a wood chipper, I can’t tell you that I wouldn’t mind if the Chinese came in a and ended his reign.
“Don’t make me laugh and say “our freedoms” - that’s the most retarded argument in the history of man.”
Hmmm. Is it? That’s what the Societ Union had a beef with - our free capitalist society. In the minds of the Islamists, ‘freedom’ breeds the materialistic, Godless hedonism mentioned above. It is their mission statement to cleanse the world of such ‘evil’. At the root of tyranny is desire to quash people’s freedoms for the sake of control.
So, our ‘freedoms’ are right at the crux of what they are pissed about.
“Wake up, smell the coffee, and use your fucking brain a little.”
Tough talk for someone serving up softballs. I’d watch your tone if I were you.
“Arabs are not pre-programmed bots hellbent on destroying western freedoms and civilization. The vast number of them who have peacefully emigrated to Western nations is a good enough indication of that.”
Indeed, and that is why giving there folks a chance at legitimate popular government makes so much sense - fundamentally, I think they want to co-exist peacefully and determine their own fate.
“EVERY SINGLE Jihadist-“propaganda” report released in the Arab world speaks of either “defending the holy land,” or “driving back the infidel” or some such decree - there is NEVER any mention of overrunning the world - or the West. These people want us OUT. That is IT and that is ALL. It’s not the hardest concept to understand.”
It is, in light of the fact that the material I have read directly refutes exactly what you are saying.
“The Soviets never had any intention of “crushing” or “invading” the West.”
Then why the Berlin Wall, Al? Your fanciful trips into make-believe are hurting my hair. Then why NATO? Then why the proxy wars? Then why the arms race, and MAD?
This has become a cartoon of a legitimate debate. I’ve learned you will say just about anything.
“The facts have already been presented on this issue, and I’ve made my case. It’s up to you to address the points I made and refute them.”
No, you haven’t. Neither has Harry Browne.
“I’m sure it can can, as soon as you name a single instance in the 20th century in which the United States was attacked by another nation, unprovoked.”
This is a loaded question, coming from you. Your threshold of provocation is one that could too easily be reached in an age - even going back to the early 20th century - of complex foreign relations.
What you don’t deal with - or I suspect can’t - is that nations pick sides based on their national interests and values. In your myopic world, you would sit back and let every democracy on every continent fold and allow the US to get completely surrounded by an enemy. You wouldn’t lift a finger until an act of aggression crossed our national border.
No thanks. Idealism and pacifism get you murdered in geopolitics. There is no world peace, so you’d better stop pretending that there is and defend your national interests.
The world demands more complicated choices than your simplistic scenarios. Worse, your policy is an invitation to suicide.
Moreover, pre-emption is not a new concept, even in American history. Maybe you can read up on the Caroline incident, which occurred during the precious era of your falsely interpreted Founding Fathers.
“Are you aware that, immediately prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the American ambassador in that region condoned the act?”
So? Ambassadors don’t make policy. Some of them even get fired for misrepresenting American policy. Weak, very weak argument.
“Preemptive and never-ending war is a death sentence for national security.”
Well, customary international law recognizes pre-emptive war. And pre-emptive war could make things worse, it’s true - but these choices have to be made. Often in war and peace, the choice is not between something bad and something good - it’s between something bad and something worse. There are no perfect scenarios, and pre-emptive war is one of those judgment calls that entail many, many risks.
But naive utopians like yourself and Harry Browne, not realizing the tragic nature of such choices, need to stay away from the big kids’ table. There never has been this libertarian society you seem to think so natural - no pure isolationist, absolute freedom paradise. Since the world doesn’t afford such convenient choices of society, we need sober pragmatists to deal with the world as it is, not as some pamphlet thinks it should be.
“The Monroe Doctrine was a forgotten relic of the past…”
Don’t you mean ‘precedent’?
And Monroe didn’t advocate it? Go read his seventh message to Congress.
“Harry Browne isn’t an anti-imperialist, per se. He’s a pro-Constitution, American patriot. The U.S. Constitution is anti-imperialist.”
Ohhhh, here comes the backstepping. The Constitution relegated Indians to less than a person status - you’re telling me that, based on your fever pitch definitions of imperialism, the Constitution wasn’t a direct product of conquest?
You have embarrassed yourself.
“What we have today is Orwellian.”
Having actually read Orwell, this tripe is so silly it barely merits a response. I’d simply add that the mere, overwhelming fact that you can post your wacky drivel here openly and freely, at length, with no consequence from a disapproving government, disproves your silly thesis.
